Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you suggesting that a universe simulator would be the "necessary being " for anything in the simulated universe?

There is nothing to rule out the necessary entity being the simulator and even if it wasn't he would appear somewhere down the line of universal simulators.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is nothing to rule out the necessary entity being the simulator and even if it wasn't he would appear somewhere down the line of universal simulators.

There is nothing to rule in a necessary being either, or at least nothing that you've been able to propose without falling into one or several fallacious arguments.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Fair enough, except that when I talked about a benevolent, caring, loving, all powerful god I wasn't thinking of the Christian God at all.

Fair enough. My idea of caring and loving, let alone benevolent, isn't an entity that ensures I never suffer or feel any pain. But that's easy for me to say as my life has been relatively pain-free compared to the struggles some other people go through - but many of those people struggling with pain are religious and their faith seems to be what helps sustain them through the hard times. So I guess they also do not equate benevolence with a pain-free life. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Agree. Having been brought up as an RC, I didn't stop believing because of reasons. Indeed I didn't stop believing at all, I just realised I didn't believe. All the reasons came after.

I think it's even weirder for people who do believe to explain their reasons, given that it's all about faith.

Yes - I just realised one day that I believed. All the reasons came after, way way after, but the reasons aren't the source of my belief as there is no objective evidence so any reason is more of a reason to not mind that I believe.

[Stranger]

There is nothing to rule out the necessary entity being the simulator and even if it wasn't he would appear somewhere down the line of universal simulators.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - I just realised one day that I believed. All the reasons came after, way way after, but the reasons aren't the source of my belief as there is no objective evidence so any reason is more of a reason to not mind that I believe.

The earlier Alan, pseudonym Alien, on this board used to present his 5 arguments for being a theist but would occasionally admit that he just believed, and the reasons followed.

I think non belief is the default in logical terms but we aren't solely logical beings. I don't think belief or lack of belief tells you that much about a person.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Can't disagree but I just don't see the value.

I don't really see that as the same thing as believing 'matters of fact', like there is a god, without evidence. Having 'the courage of ones convictions' is about the way you see your own abilities.

If a fact is defined as something for which there is objective evidence, then I'm not sure how you can use the word "fact" in relation to god. It's precisely because there is a lack of objective evidence that it's faith rather than fact.

Interesting. I don't see "having the courage of ones convictions" as being about the way you see your own abilities. My experience/ understanding of the idiom is the idea of acting based on your belief of what is right based on your own value-system or what you want to stand for in this world, even though others may not approve - presumably because your belief is something subjective e.g. related to morality or a cause or ideology, and therefore others may not share your belief and oppose it.

I see a similar approach in terms of my belief in god - I prefer the person I am as a theist to the person I was as an atheist, so I have no desire to change my belief. So the faith that is a component of that belief has value for me. 

Faith seems to be about trust in something, even without evidence. This can be a positive attribute e.g. where people have an unshakeable belief that they can achieve something. I recently heard a few people use the term "manifesting" in relation to having a goal and carrying out actions that will get them closer to that goal. So, provided faith is being used for something positive, not really seeing the problem with it.

"Thanks god, that you didn't make my life as shit as some other people's." ...

That's one way of looking at things in a more positive light 

In Islamic beliefs and stories it seems to me that having a shit life seems to go with the territory for the people who are described as prophets  i.e. people who are supposedly close to god who become leaders of a community and conveyed a religious message of monotheism to various communities throughout the centuries. So it seems like having a shit life can sometimes strengthen your belief. There is also the idea in Islam that the stronger your faith, the harder the tests you might face - maybe a bit like being fitter and stronger than average and then going to Marine boot camp. And there is also the notion in Islam that any hardship you face while alive will be a way of expunging some of the sins that you might have been held accountable for after death. So as you can see, there are a few ways in religion to put a more positive spin on a shit life provided you have faith.

[Stranger]

If a fact is defined as something for which there is objective evidence, then I'm not sure how you can use the word "fact" in relation to god. It's precisely because there is a lack of objective evidence that it's faith rather than fact.

That's not what I meant. By 'matter of fact' I mean something (with or without evidence) about the objective world outside your mind, or, to put it another way, something that is true for everybody, regardless of their beliefs. In this case, the idea that an objectively real god exists and that that is true for everybody, even if they don't believe it.

Interesting. I don't see "having the courage of ones convictions" as being about the way you see your own abilities. My experience/ understanding of the idiom is the idea of acting based on your belief of what is right based on your own value-system or what you want to stand for in this world, even though others may not approve - presumably because your belief is something subjective e.g. related to morality or a cause or ideology, and therefore others may not share your belief and oppose it.

Well, I guess it can be used in several ways, but I don't see it, in any sense, as the same as believing a matter of fact (as defined above) without evidence.

In Islamic beliefs and stories it seems to me that having a shit life seems to go with the territory for the people who are described as prophets  i.e. people who are supposedly close to god who become leaders of a community and conveyed a religious message of monotheism to various communities throughout the centuries. So it seems like having a shit life can sometimes strengthen your belief. There is also the idea in Islam that the stronger your faith, the harder the tests you might face - maybe a bit like being fitter and stronger than average and then going to Marine boot camp. And there is also the notion in Islam that any hardship you face while alive will be a way of expunging some of the sins that you might have been held accountable for after death. So as you can see, there are a few ways in religion to put a more positive spin on a shit life provided you have faith.

I'm still left scratching my head and thinking this doesn't make any sense and all seems a bit pointless, and a cause of needless suffering to boot.

Why couldn't an omni god just have made a better job of designing humans in the first place?

It all makes sense if there is no god - clearly faith can have a powerful effect on (some) people, but it's a bit of a loose cannon because it isn't based on any evidence, so it can end up dragging you in a good or a bad direction.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's not what I meant. By 'matter of fact' I mean something (with or without evidence) about the objective world outside your mind, or, to put it another way, something that is true for everybody, regardless of their beliefs. In this case, the idea that an objectively real god exists and that that is true for everybody, even if they don't believe it.

Sure, but if its existence is not testable using the normal tests to identify what exists objectively in the material world, but we can see that the idea of it has an effect on a considerable number of people to the point where it becomes a widespread faith claim, we are left with the provisional conclusion that we cannot know whether it 'exists' somewhere or whether it only exists in people's minds. People with faith don't seem to need the objective evidence and seem prepared to incorporate this faith into their life in varying degrees. Presumably because they find some value in it without needing it to be demonstrated objectively as fact.

Well, I guess it can be used in several ways, but I don't see it, in any sense, as the same as believing a matter of fact (as defined above) without evidence.

I'm still left scratching my head and thinking this doesn't make any sense and all seems a bit pointless, and a cause of needless suffering to boot.

Why couldn't an omni god just have made a better job of designing humans in the first place?

It all makes sense if there is no god - clearly faith can have a powerful effect on (some) people, but it's a bit of a loose cannon because it isn't based on any evidence, so it can end up dragging you in a good or a bad direction.

Presumably humans without flaws is possible. Maybe it makes a better story with the human flaws in it - more variety of experiences, more to learn from and learn to deal with and more depth of feeling than in a life where everything works well and there is no pain or sadness.

ETA: humans can be loose canons but I don't think religious beliefs are any more problematic than political or moral beliefs, which can also have a powerful effect and drag you into a good or bad direction. Beliefs seem to be part of the human experience. So why does it matter if the existence of gods is unknowable i.e. can't be objectively shown to exist independent of a person's mind?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

There is nothing to rule out the necessary entity being the simulator and even if it wasn't he would appear somewhere down the line of universal simulators.

Ok, so in your line of universe simulators some of these simulators might be nothing like the claims of monotheistic religion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok, so in your line of universe simulators some of these simulators might be nothing like the claims of monotheistic religion?

The universe simulators could be a polytheism of course. That doesn't help atheism though.
What we have then is a creation, completely dependent on an entity or entities that are not dependent on that creation, The only way we would know about them is if they had a means of revelation, We could not establish their existence except by argument.All these things have been the hallmark of THEISM for centuries.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The universe simulators could be a polytheism of course.

Or generated by AI?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or generated by AI?

Something intelligent would have had to have created it otherwise it is just 'I'. I have stated how the attributes we can attach to the creator are theistic and if you think about it a hierarchy of creators is still, effectively, a pantheon.

[Stranger]

The universe simulators could be a polytheism of course. That doesn't help atheism though.
What we have then is a creation, completely dependent on an entity or entities that are not dependent on that creation, The only way we would know about them is if they had a means of revelation, We could not establish their existence except by argument.All these things have been the hallmark of THEISM for centuries.

I really, really don't know why you seem so determined to make a compete arse of yourself like this (it's really quite funny though). Your last contribution was even more comical:

There is nothing to rule out the necessary entity being the simulator...

So a bunch of people in a simulation lab might be 'necessary' whereas our entire (non-simulated) universe couldn't possibly be? Well that's consistent.   

And, of course, we can forget the literal omnipotence and omniscience, let alone omnibenevolence

Still, while we're on the subject of you worshipping a bunch of scientists and technicians, perhaps you could go back to the question you kept avoiding before? Given that the whole simulation conjecture was based on a technological species, it's very unlikely that they would start their endeavours with a fully complete universe. They would start out by simulating certain aspects of one, move on to more complicated aspects, maybe larger parts and more complicated systems. Then maybe life; simple to begin with, then plants, then animals, then perhaps humans, but the first human simulations are very unlikely to be embedded in an entire simulated universe. In fact, it's difficult to see what the point of a fully detailed universe simulation would be at all. We could be in one that is all about us, or the ecosystem in general, or something, but then why would you bother simulating the entire 13.5 billion years of history and all of space. Much more likely, if one is inclined to accept the speculation, that our simulation is not complete but only good enough to look complete to us.

Anyway, you get the idea. The process would be gradual and may never result in a full universe. So, at what level of detail, and how close to a complete universe does it have to be before Vlad falls to his knees and starts worshipping these scientists...?

Are weather forecasters on their way to godhood because they simulate the weather systems on Earth....? I mean, everybody's got to start somewhere, eh? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

All these things have been the hallmark of THEISM for centuries.

Has it been a hallmark of "THEISM" for centuries that the answer to the question "why gods?" is "cos they're magic?", or is it just your personal theism that does that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Still, while we're on the subject of you worshipping a bunch of scientists and technicians...

Or perhaps he worships a celestial gamer kid who was given a super advanced version of The Sims for Christmas? 

[Stranger]

The universe simulators could be a polytheism of course. That doesn't help atheism though.
What we have then is a creation, completely dependent on an entity or entities that are not dependent on that creation, The only way we would know about them is if they had a means of revelation, We could not establish their existence except by argument.All these things have been the hallmark of THEISM for centuries.

Just for the record. And to be serious about it for a moment (well, I can try, but it is hilarious).

As was pointed out before, your formal logical problem is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Or, equivalently, the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

We can wrap up all your 'god-like' characteristics here: "a creation, completely dependent on an entity or entities that are not dependent on that creation, The only way we would know about them is if they had a means of revelation, We could not establish their existence except by argument" and call them C*. Then let's call being a god G.

Now, you could argue that C is necessary for G, but it is very difficult to argue that C is sufficient for G. To get the idea: being male is necessary to be King, but is by no means sufficient. Being a figure with four sides is necessary but not sufficient to be a square. Having at least one seat and four wheels is necessary but not sufficient to be a car (it could be a horse drawn carriage, for example). You can turn them all around to get sufficient but not necessary, so being King is sufficient but not necessary to be male, being a square is sufficient but not necessary to be a figure with four sides.

The other way to look at your mistake is the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent, so basically you've said:

If G then C
C
Therefore G

This is just doing your logic 'sums' wrong. It's basically akin to arguing (from the Wiki article):

If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs.
My cat has four legs.
Therefore, my cat is a dog.

So, you can go on making an arse of yourself on a public forum or stop and learn some logic.....

* Although I can't quite see why you think the last one is valid, what argument would establish that there is a simulator? The conjecture is far from watertight and rests on a number of untestable assumptions. Many people have criticised it for various reasons.

[Nearly Sane]

Stranger,

Or perhaps he worships a celestial gamer kid who was given a super advanced version of The Sims for Christmas?

Such comments always remind me of the novelette by George R R Martin, Sandkings.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandkings_(novelette)

[Stranger]

Sure, but if its existence is not testable using the normal tests to identify what exists objectively in the material world, but we can see that the idea of it has an effect on a considerable number of people to the point where it becomes a widespread faith claim, we are left with the provisional conclusion that we cannot know whether it 'exists' somewhere or whether it only exists in people's minds.

The rational response to having no objective evidence, or sound reasoning, for something is to not accept the proposition that it is true, which, in this case, leads directly to agnostic atheism.

The number of people who belief is irrelevant and it's not as if people who say they believe in 'God' all believe in anything like the same thing. In the case of Christianity, for example, you could hardly argue that Desmond Tutu and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe in the same being. And that's before we get to differences between religions.

People with faith don't seem to need the objective evidence and seem prepared to incorporate this faith into their life in varying degrees. Presumably because they find some value in it without needing it to be demonstrated objectively as fact.

Whereas I'm sure that this is true for some (many, perhaps, I don't have any statistics, do you?) there seem to be no shortage of believers that think that there is objective evidence and/or sound reasoning that leads to their god. We have two examples on this thread recently.

ETA: humans can be loose canons but I don't think religious beliefs are any more problematic than political or moral beliefs, which can also have a powerful effect and drag you into a good or bad direction.

On one level, the negatives of religion are pretty much the same as any other type of tribalism. However, in the case of the more extreme fundamentalist varieties of religion there seems to me to be a level of magical thinking and a disconnection with reality that means that they don't feel the need to even try to justify themselves with respect to reality at all. This seems to be a significant difference.

Beliefs seem to be part of the human experience. So why does it matter if the existence of gods is unknowable i.e. can't be objectively shown to exist independent of a person's mind?

Rationality?

[Stranger]

Such comments always remind me of the novelette by George R R Martin, Sandkings.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandkings_(novelette)

Yet again, URLs that end in brackets don't work if you just drop them in a post, you have to use the [url][/url] tags. Here's a link that works:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandkings_(novelette)

[Nearly Sane]

Yet again, URLs that end in brackets don't work if you just drop them in a post, you have to use the [url][/url] tags. Here's a link that works:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandkings_(novelette)

Ta.

And I'll take the opportunity to expand in that the central point of the story seems to me to be that if a world is in the image of its god, any god who created this one must be a hideous capricious thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Sure, but if its existence is not testable using the normal tests to identify what exists objectively in the material world, but we can see that the idea of it has an effect on a considerable number of people to the point where it becomes a widespread faith claim, we are left with the provisional conclusion that we cannot know whether it 'exists' somewhere or whether it only exists in people's minds.

Just to note that that’s a non sequitur. If a belief that something exists “is not testable using the normal tests to identify what exists objectively in the material world” then, absent any other method to justify it, that belief cannot be said to be sound. Whether or not “the idea of it has an effect on a considerable number of people to the point where it becomes a widespread faith claim” has no relevance for this purpose. An unqualified fact claim is an unqualified fact claim no matter how many people believe it or benefit from it.         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The rational response to having no objective evidence, or sound reasoning, for something is to not accept the proposition that it is true, which, in this case, leads directly to agnostic atheism.

Not sure what point you're making here. If you believe that people can choose their beliefs, do you have any objective evidence or sound reasoning for that belief?

The number of people who belief is irrelevant and it's not as if people who say they believe in 'God' all believe in anything like the same thing. In the case of Christianity, for example, you could hardly argue that Desmond Tutu and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe in the same being. And that's before we get to differences between religions.

It's not irrelevant to the point I made, which is that it is observable that people believe in the existence of something for which there is no objective evidence, and there is no method to test for its existence. The variation in their beliefs is probably because the experience and interpretation of their belief is subjective so it will reflect their nature/ nurture.

Whereas I'm sure that this is true for some (many, perhaps, I don't have any statistics, do you?) there seem to be no shortage of believers that think that there is objective evidence and/or sound reasoning that leads to their god. We have two examples on this thread recently.

Sure but they have yet to produce any objective evidence and only offer subjective evidence such as stories from witnesses who have subjectively interpreted what they experience. So regardless of what they think, the evidence we see them offer is subjective evidence.

On one level, the negatives of religion are pretty much the same as any other type of tribalism. However, in the case of the more extreme fundamentalist varieties of religion there seems to me to be a level of magical thinking and a disconnection with reality that means that they don't feel the need to even try to justify themselves with respect to reality at all. This seems to be a significant difference.

Do you have a link I can read to studies showing evidence of a different level of magical thinking linked to 'tribal' religious identity (as opposed to 'tribal' political identity or ethnic/cultural/ moral identity) that is shown to cause an extra or different level of violence in people? I don't know if there are such studies or is this something you believe to be true but don't have any objective evidence or sound reasoning to demonstrate?

Presumably there isn't a problem in a democracy with people holding or arguing for differing beliefs including beliefs about something existing, given the alternative is some sort of a dictatorship?

The problematic issue seems to be with people who believe in the absolute truth of their particular belief AND also believe it is not acceptable to deviate from the norms of behaviour/thought that they hold to be true AND are willing to commit violence to force others to not deviate or to accept their belief is true - presumably because they also believe the end justifies the means.

For example people who believed in the absolute truth of Brexit without any objective evidence - e.g. that it would secure UK borders or would not negatively impact growth or lead to wage and price inflation, or believed a hit to the economy was a price worth paying to leave the EU or believed in Boris Johnson's political slogan that he will "Get Brexit done" only become an unacceptable problem for society if they start murdering MPs or inflicting violence on those who oppose Brexit.

Another example is that it might be acceptable if people believe in the absolute truth of their proposition that gender exists or is more important than biological sex or that biological sex is assigned at birth or that biological sex is on a spectrum rather than binary or that a person can be born in the wrong body or that you can change your biological sex. Whereas if some of those believers go on to become activists in order to change social norms OR a minority of them go on to believe that opposing views e.g. gender-critical beliefs inflict violence on transgender people AND therefore it is ok to use violence to force others to accept and live by their trans-activist belief, it becomes problematic for society.

Whether someone adopts an extreme position based on their beliefs seems to be a function of how much a person's identity is tied up with the belief, which may be a result of their nature/nurture. Increasingly studies seem to link teenage adoption of a trans identity in girls with neurodivergences such as autism.

We can observe in the LGBTQ community that there is frequent in-fighting amongst people who broadly share this particular group identity, with frequent attempts to influence wider society to cancel people or reject people for deviating from the ideology that a minority of vocal activists deem to be the absolute truth.

So not really seeing evidence of a unique level of magical thinking applicable only to religious belief.

Rationality?

Again, not sure of your point - unless you are suggesting people can choose their beliefs?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Just to note that that’s a non sequitur. If a belief that something exists “is not testable using the normal tests to identify what exists objectively in the material world” then, absent any other method to justify it, that belief cannot be said to be sound. Whether or not “the idea of it has an effect on a considerable number of people to the point where it becomes a widespread faith claim” has no relevance for this purpose. An unqualified fact claim is an unqualified fact claim no matter how many people believe it or benefit from it.       

My point was only that the belief can be observed.

Same question as to Stranger - where does it leave us if a belief is unqualified due to lack of objective evidence? If people can't choose their beliefs, what difference does it make? Or are you saying that people can choose their beliefs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

Or perhaps he worships a celestial gamer kid who was given a super advanced version of The Sims for Christmas?

Oh yeh, as if he's going to be into Victor Meldrew type unbelievers take on Crusty theists...
Another Hillside hypothesis bites the dust.